Karen E Seggerman

Operating a Metropolitan Planning Organization: Internal Funding, Work Programs, and Consultant Balance

The nations 385 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are required to maintain a comprehensive, continuing, and coordinated transportation planning and programming process. To perform these required tasks, operational funding is required to pay staff and other costs. This paper explores the sources of MPO funding and the disposal of those funds. The information contained was collected as a part of a larger survey that obtained responses from 133 MPOs from around the country. Federal assistance received through four different programs dominates the budgets of MPOs; however, all federal funds require a 20% match. Some states meet this match, but for many MPOs, funds must be raised locally. Seventy-eight percent of responding MPOs receive local money, which can be used to match federal funds, to pay for prohibited expenses, or to supplement the agencys budget. Methods for raising and expending local funds are discussed in detail. The requirements and characteristics of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) are discussed. Responding MPOs expend 25% of their collective budget on consultants, while informational or pass-through funds account for about 17% of the UPWP.

Managing the Indirect Impacts of Bypasses on Small- and Medium-sized Communities in Florida

In Florida, the bypass alternative is increasingly being considered in small and medium-sized communities that contain roadways that are part of Floridas strategic intermodal system (SIS)–-roadways critical to the statewide movement of people and goods. These roads are often the primary roadways into and through smaller communities. Local governments sometimes seek SIS designation to gain funding for increasing the capacity or improving the function of the major roadway; this process leads to consideration of a bypass. Observed issues with these bypasses include the following: (a) the SIS designation assigns level of service and design criteria that increase pressure for a bypass alternative; (b) misconceptions abound regarding potential positive and negative impacts of a bypass; (c) inadequate consideration is given to evaluation of the potential indirect impacts of a bypass on land use and related issues (e.g., livability, local mobility); (d) without local roadway network planning in affected areas, many local trips are likely to rely on the new bypass; (e) access management is critical for the bypass and along major roadways accessing the bypass and their interchanges; (f) the bypassed roadway may be oversize in relation to local mobility needs and could benefit from multimodal enhancements; and (g) proactive attention is needed for addressing potential indirect land use and mobility impacts, which will help determine appropriate plans, strategies, and mitigation measures. This paper examines these issues and offers practical enhancements to current policy and practice to help the Florida Department of Transportation and local governments achieve a multidimensional approach to bypass planning and impact mitigation.

Methodology of impact fees emphasizing vehicle miles traveled

This paper provides a working concept and methodology for application of a mobility fee in Florida. The mobility fee has many characteristics of an impact fee modified for sensitivity to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Policy and practical implications of implementing such a fee are addressed, along with the fee methodology and illustration of the approach through hypothetical testing in Alachua County, Florida. The primary concept for the mobility fee is a modified impact fee assessed on new development. The approach presented anticipates regional cooperation in the development and adoption of a mobility plan that includes all transportation modes. Through sensitivity to VMT, the modified impact fee may help to discourage urban sprawl and reward mixed-use development and other development near or within existing activity centers. The hypothetical test results reveal that the two approaches—the average rate and the location-based rate—produce very different fees for new development. The paper reports on research performed for the Florida Department of Community Affairs.